Ask the Idea Guru

[OldTrees]

http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,40504.0.html

I need your opinion on this

Anger: If a creature on your side dies, Mother Bear attacks one more time per death on its next attack

I have 2 concerns with this mechanic.
1) It can act like "All sparks gain +5|+0" (Too much effect for the cost)
2) I am not sure anger channeled into retribution is a Life theme.

I would modify the effect so the Mother Bear will not notice natural or sacrificial deaths (Spark, Virus, Catapult, Immolation). Perhaps by requiring the opponent to have killed the creature.

Since this is a threat it will be balanced when the opponent is ambivalent about whether to trigger or avoid the threat. An extra attack per Mother Bear is potent. I think it is close enough for now (assuming the above change). Playtesting would be required to double check.

[NonexistentFlower]

http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,40463.0.html

What is your opinion on this (Regarding its balance etc.)?

[waterzx]

What are your thoughts on combining physical and spell damage in one card ?

http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,40367.0.html

[OldTrees]

http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,40463.0.html

What is your opinion on this (Regarding its balance etc.)?

1) Elite Immortal gains +1 attack, +1 hp tier for +1 cost. +2 comes with a similar cost increase (See Phase Dragon).
2) A 5|4 Elite Immortal is worth around 6 + 1 upgrade + 1 card (I always forget which immaterial creature is the UP one)
~= 7.5 + 1 card unupped.
3) Ghostly flame costs 2 + Duo + delayed 1 turn + 1 card + 1 per turn.
~= 4 + 1 card + 1 per turn
It is probably balanced considering it is a rush card and such decks lose if the game goes on too long.
4) This card cannot be used without paying the activation cost. This is suboptimal. Ideally a duo creature could be played either as a mono vanilla creature or as a duo skilled creature.
5) Are you sure the name fits? I usually think Will o Wisps as creatures with weak natural attacks that lure strangers into dangerous areas. Nothing like the Charger stats of this creature.
6) What benefit do you see this providing for Elements?

What are your thoughts on combining physical and spell damage in one card ?

http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,40367.0.html

My initial thoughts were it sounded like a clunky mechanic for partial partial momentum. However the use of Ice Bolt surprised me. In some ways this is a better design for Fahrenheit.

3 + Weapon + 1 card + Stock  -> 4 + Physical 2/3 Firebolt
6 + 1 card + Stock Fire -> 4 + Physical 2/3 Firebolt
2 + 1 card + Stock Fire -> Physical 2/3 Firebolt
4 + 1 card + Stock Fire -> Physical Firebolt
A)[Here I estimated physical to spell damage as +17-33% of the non stock quanta cost. The new estimate of 1 card = 2 quanta was used.]
5-6 + 1 card + Stock Fire -> Firebolt
5-6 + 1 card + Stock Water -> Ice Bolt
8-9 + 1 card + Stock Water -> 3 Physical + Ice Bolt
5-6 + Weapon + 1 card + Stock Water -> 3 Physical + Ice Bolt

I would recommend the attack not chage when upgraded but rather the cost drop. 5-6 | 3-5

[The_Mormegil]

(I always forget which immaterial creature is the UP one)

Immortal is UP. Think of it this way: immaterial is good if you're going to stall - it's not worth the cost increase if you want to rush. Stalls need card space more than they need fast creatures. Phase Dragon packs double the punch for the same card space. Phase Dragon >> Immortal, which is barely usable even if dragon is banned.

[Rutarete]

Do you think a small amount (say, about 5) of specialized cards would benefit ETG? A medium amount? What's the limit before it would be detrimental?

[OldTrees]

Do you think a small amount (say, about 5) of specialized cards would benefit ETG? A medium amount? What's the limit before it would be detrimental?

Imagine a card pool of 10 cards. We can use lines to represent the synergies and combos the cards create. The more lines exist, the more opportunities exist for decks. Specialized cards are cards with fewer connections than average. In this manner being specialized is a con in design proportional to the degree of specialization. Since specialized is relative to the average, no more than 50% of cards can be specialized. The metagame is benefited more by higher average connections per card. Adding cards with fewer connections lowers the average and thus reduces this benefit.

However the specialization is not the only factor that provides benefit. There are other beneficial factors that a card can have that compensate for this detriment. This can lead to specialized cards that are a net benefit.

As a general guideline: A card should either be able to be used by itself or ( have at least 3 distinct/separate combos and have a benefit worth the degree of specialization ) .

[Zaealix]

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned before...But something I thought of was the idea of a  creature with stats of X|X, where X was the number of creatures on your side of the field.
However, in attempts to balance it, I didn't like what I saw...Basically, it starts out a 1|1, since it counts itself, but the cost wouldn't be balanced well with the effect. I'd like to have balanced it at 4 or maybe 5 , but the fact that it's ability is an unreliable booster, makes it hard to know just how to balance the thing...Any ideas?

[furballdn]

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned before...But something I thought of was the idea of a  creature with stats of X|X, where X was the number of creatures on your side of the field.
However, in attempts to balance it, I didn't like what I saw...Basically, it starts out a 1|1, since it counts itself, but the cost wouldn't be balanced well with the effect. I'd like to have balanced it at 4 or maybe 5 , but the fact that it's ability is an unreliable booster, makes it hard to know just how to balance the thing...Any ideas?

Fractal, mitosis, and aflatoxin will make that very hard to balance.

[OldTrees]

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned before...But something I thought of was the idea of a  creature with stats of X|X, where X was the number of creatures on your side of the field.
However, in attempts to balance it, I didn't like what I saw...Basically, it starts out a 1|1, since it counts itself, but the cost wouldn't be balanced well with the effect. I'd like to have balanced it at 4 or maybe 5 , but the fact that it's ability is an unreliable booster, makes it hard to know just how to balance the thing...Any ideas?

This has been suggested before a few times. (usually as an Aether creature strangely enough)

In its current form it would always be used with either Mitosis, Fractal, Alfatoxin or another spawner.

However it would be balanced based on the average stats over the course of a game. (Playtesting should be done to double check my estimates)
I would assume that it would quickly get to at least a 7|7 in most games. 7 +/- 2 might be a reasonable cost.

A playtest with it and fractal photon | damselflies would be wise.

[russianspy1234]

What do you think would be a good balance for using HP instead of quanta for an ability activation (in this case growth)  I valued it at 5 HP for an activation, thus making 5 HP equal to 1  /  
card in question

[OldTrees]

What do you think would be a good balance for using HP instead of quanta for an ability activation (in this case growth)  I valued it at 5 HP for an activation, thus making 5 HP equal to 1  /  
card in question

Usually a crude approximation can be made by reversing an existing effect. Heal is 3 + 1 card for 20 hp. If 1 card is worth ~2 quanta then 1 elemental quanta -> 4hp healing (assuming linear value for healing). However this is a crude estimate. 5hp is close enough.

The next test is ambivalence. Would informed players be ambivalent about using this card compared to its peer?
4 for 2|2  :Growth
vs
4 for 2|2 5hp:Growth
Saves quanta, gains resistance to denial but also gains a vulnerability to rush. I am ambivalent.

So it appears that the 5hp activation cost is equivalent to 1quanta mono activation cost. (Note that Lava Golem has a duo activation cost.)
Ghoul could probably get an additional +1 attack on its base stats.